Why
is it that few people seem to have problems with
the burden of proof when it comes to the
innocence or guilt of a murder suspect, but then
cannot apply the same exact logic to more
esoteric issues, such as the existence of
ghosts, gods, and the like?---Massimo Pigliucci,
2010

Most people as young children appear
to have a “commonsense” understanding of the burden of proof. When young
people hear a claim being made and it is, in their minds and experience,
an extraordinary claim being made, quite often the response is one of
asking for something to support the claim. The most common retorts are
along the line of “Prove it”, “What makes you say that”, “Sow me” or
something like “Oh, yeah?”. Somewhere along the way too many humans lose
that sense and too often suspend their inclination to accept the
principles underlying the “Burden of Proof”. Going a bit further it is
to be noted that not all
people care to be considered as being rational or reasonable or willing
to use their intellect as best as possible but for any person who
cares at all about being rational and using reason then operating with
the "Burden of Proof" rule of reason:

You cannot claim that
"miracles exist unless someone proves that they do not exist."

You cannot claim that
"souls exist unless someone proves that they do not exist."

You cannot claim that
"angels exist unless someone proves that they do not exist."

You cannot claim that
"deities exist unless someone proves that they do not exist."

The Burden
of Proof as presented below applies to claims that are cognitive and
empirical. The principle applies to claims about what exists or
does not exist.

The
instances of circumstances that provide nuanced exceptions (see below)
to the rule are so few and misleading to let it appear they nullify the
rule that it is far better to just state that the burden of proof is always on the claim that X
exists rather than on the claim that X does not exist. It is a fallacy to claim that X exists unless you
prove that there is no X. What is improper is for a person to claim
that "X exists" and when asked to prove it, then the person who made the claim
uses as a defense of "X exists" the next claim that no one has proven
that X does not exist.

If a person claims that X exists and is real then the
burden is on that person to supply some support for that claim, some
evidence or proof that others can and should examine before accepting it. It is incorrect to think that X exists and is real until
someone can prove that there is no X. It is also wrong to think that just because you can not
prove that X exists that does not mean that X does not exist and therefore
X does exist.

Why is it that the burden is on the person who makes
the claim? Well think whether or not it is a better way to proceed
through life to accept anything and everything that people claim to be
so. Experience should instruct every thinking human that there is
a high probability that not everything that people claim to be true is
actually true. Some claims might be made with the claimant aware
that the claim is not true and some claims might be made with the
claimant thinking that they are true but being mistaken. As it is
for most humans not a very good idea to proceed through life based on
beliefs that are false and thinking beliefs and claims to be true when they are not,
most humans and those who would use reason to guide them will want some
evidence and reasoning to support a claim being asserted to be true.
So the burden is on those who make claims to offer reason and evidence
in support of those claims.

SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF

The burden of proof is always on the person making an
assertion or proposition.Shifting
the burden of proof, a special case of argumentum ad ignorantium, is the
fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or
questions the assertion being made.The
source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless
proven otherwise.

The person making a negative claim cannot logically
prove nonexistence. And here's why: to know that a X does not exist would
require a perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience). To attain this
knowledge would require simultaneous access to all parts of the world and
beyond (omnipresence). Therefore, to be certain ofthe claim that X does not exist one would have to possess abilities
that are non-existent. Obviously, mankind's limited nature precludes these
special abilities. The claim that X does not exist is therefore
unjustifiable. As logician Mortimer Adler has pointed out, the attempt to
prove a universal negative is a self- defeating proposition.These claims are "worldwide existential negatives." They
are only a small class of all possible negatives. They cannot be
established by direct observation because no single human observer can
cover the whole earth at one time in order to declare by personal
authority that any “X” doesn't exist.

This is a Fallacy.
If
X is unproven, then it is unproven and remains unproven until
reason and evidence is provided or secured to establish the proof or
high probability of the claim being true..

Examples:

(1)Of course God exists. Has anyone ever proven
otherwise?

(2)Of course pink elephants inhabit Mars. We don't
see them because they blend in. Can you prove otherwise?

(3) Of
course Santa Claus exists. No one has ever proved, to my knowledge, that
Santa Claus does not exist. And if one were to fly to the North Pole and
say: Well, look, there's no toy factory there. A believer could argue:
Well, Santa Claus knew you were coming and moved his operations to the
South Pole. So you fly down to the South Pole. No Santa Claus factory, toy
factory there. So the believer would say: Oh, he moved it back up to the
North Pole.

So you
simply cannot prove general claims that are negative claims -- one cannot prove that ghosts do not exist; one
cannot prove that leprechauns too do not exist. One simply cannot prove a
negative and general claim.

"Negative statements often make
claims that are hard to prove because they make predictions about things
we are in practice unable to observe in a finite time. For instance,
"there are no big green Martians" means "there are no big
green Martians in this or any universe," and unlike your bathtub,
it is not possible to look in every corner of every universe, thus we
cannot completely test this proposition--we can just look around within
the limits of our ability and our desire to expend time and resources on
looking, and prove that, where we have looked so far, and within the
limits of our knowing anything at all, there are no big green Martians.
In such a case we have proved a negative, just not the negative of the
sweeping proposition in question."-Richard Carrier, "Proving a Negative "(1999) by
Richard Carrier at
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/theory.html

It is possible to
prove rather specific negative claims that are made with rather well
defined limits. If the area to be searched is well defined and of
a reasonable size that permits searching then a negative claim might be
capable of being proven. For example, if one claims that there is
no apple in the top desk drawer of a desk then all one needs to do is to
open the top desk drawer indicated in the claim and examine it for its
contents. Finding no apple therein would provide sufficient
evidence under ordinary circumstances to verify or confirm the negative
claim that there is no apple in the top desk drawer.

"In some circumstances it can be safely
assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence
of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In
such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take
the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof
of its non-occurrence." - Introduction to Logic, Copi,
1953, Page 95

You can prove a
specific negative claim by providing contradictory evidence. An example
of a proof of a rather specific negative claim by contradictory evidence
would be if someone were to claim that the one and only watch that you
own is in the top drawer of the desk. You make the negative claim
that it is not in the drawer and you see it clearly on your wrist.
There is no need to look in the drawer.

You can also prove
specific negative claims when they involve known impossibilities.
For example is someone were to claim that the one and only moon that
normally orbits the planet earth was in the top desk drawer. You
claim that the moon is not in the desk drawer. There would be no
need to look inside because the mass of the moon would not fit inside
such a space and were its mass to be condensed its mass would be far
greater than the desk could support were the desk made of ordinary earth
substances.

You can also prove
specific negative claims that can be rephrased as a positive claim.
If someone claims that the lights are not on in room 442 that claim can
be rephrased as claiming that the lights are off in room 442.

The claim that you
can not prove a negative claim is itself a negative claim and would be a
self defeating statement or a retortion were it not generally understood
to be a limited claim. What is usually meant by the assertion that
"One can not prove a negative claim" is that it is not logical to insist
on proof of claims or statements of the sort: " There is no such thing
as X that exists anywhere at all and at any time at all."

Negative claims in
the context of religion are very commonly of this form:

"You can not prove
that there is no deity"

"You can not prove
that there are no miracles"

These claims are
asserted by those holding belief in the existence of such phenomena.
They do not usually assert such criticisms against those who claim that
there are no phenomena such as those not believed in by the defenders of
the existence of a deity or miracles. For example believers in
deity or miracles do not criticize those who claim that there are no
tooth fairies or that there are no leprechauns. The theists
appears to think that the critic of theism is claiming that there are no
deities and that such a claim can be proven or has been proven.
What is actually being claimed by most critics of the claims that there
are deities or miracles is that "There is not sufficient evidence to
establish the existence of a deity or a miracle." or that "It has
not been proven that there are deities or miracles." The burden of
proof is on the claimant of the positive claim that an entity X does
exist. The critic of the person making the positive claim that an
entity X does exist is asking for evidence in support of that claim and
that the evidence be relevant and sufficient to warrant or support the
claim.

The unprovability of non-existence.

Here's what the The
Objectivist Newsletter (April 1963) had to say on the logical fallacy of
proving a negative:

"Proving the non-existence of that for which
no evidence of any kind exists. Proof, logic, reason, thinking, knowledge
pertain to and deal only with that which exists. They cannot be applied to
that which does not exist. Nothing can be relevant or applicable to the
non-existent. The non-existent is nothing. A positive statement, based on
facts that have been erroneously interpreted, can be refuted - by means of
exposingthe errors in the
interpretation of the facts. Such refutation is the disproving of a
positive, not the proving of a negative.... Rational demonstration is
necessary to support even the claim that a thing is possible. It is a
breach of logic to assert that that which has not been proven to be
impossible is, therefore, possible. An absence does not constitute proof
of anything. Nothing can be derived from nothing." If I say,
"Anything is possible" I must admit the possibility that the
statement I just made is false. (See Self Exclusion) Doubt must always be
specific, and can only exist in contrast to things that cannot properly be
doubted. “

"Absence of evidence is not
evidence of absence!" --

Carl Sagan
criticized such "impatience with ambiguity" in cosmologist
Martin Rees' maxim, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of
absence"

It means that if we don't know that something exists and have no evidence
that it exists then that is not a sufficient basis for thinking that we have
proved that it does not exist at all. It only means we don't know one
way or the other, we just haven't been made aware of it yet so it's not part
of our knowledge. This is another variation on argumentum ad ignorantium, The
source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless
proven otherwise or that it is false unless proven otherwise. From a
lack of knowledge or any evidence to support a claim it is not appropriate
and definitely not safe to reach any definite conclusion about the claim.

The case for evidence of absence depends upon whether or not evidence of any
kind exists. If none exists, then absence of evidence is neither evidence of
absence or of existence.

If someone claims that X exists and then there is a search for X but
the more people look in places where X "ought to be" in ways and at
times that X "should be likely to be there," and there is no evidence of X
found, then the more confidence you can have that there is no "X".

Even if absence of evidence really is evidence of absence in some few well
defined cases of very finite extension (e.g., there is no elephant in this
desk drawer because there is an absence of evidence of an elephant being in
the desk drawer), ignorance of evidence is neither one of those things and
shouldn't be mistaken to imply either one. Ignorance of evidence is evidence
of ignorance and that is all that it is.

Rejecting the Burden of Proof

There are those who will refuse
to accept that the burden of proof rests with those making positive claims.
They do want to claim that:

"miracles
exist unless someone proves that they do not exist."

"souls
exist unless someone proves that they do not exist."

"angels
exist unless someone proves that they do not exist."

"deities
exist unless someone proves that they do not exist."

Those who
behave in this manner are rejecting the use of reason. They want to
believe that X is true or that X exists and to believe it without evidence
or even against evidence to the contrary. They want to have their
beliefs remain intact and not subject to refutation or to reexamination
for fear of needing to alter their beliefs. They rest their beliefs
in X existing or in X being true not on evidence and reason but on FAITH
and even on BLIND FAITH and when against reason and counterevidence on
willfully BLIND FAITH. Such behavior is within the realm of Religion
and not at all acceptable amongst those who would pursue Philosophical
discourse or who would ask that reason and evidence support claims.

Additional readings concerning the difficulty of proving a general negative
claim.

The following is a perfectly reasonable way to reach a conclusion, in fact
the pattern is known as VALID, meaning that if the premises are true the
conclusion must be true:

Premise: P>Q

Premise: not Q

Conclusion: therefore not P

This pattern of reasoning is known as denying the consequent ormodus tollens

Here it is with some meaningful statements in the place of the P and Q.

Premise: If there is a fire burning in room 442, then you have
Oxygen present in room 442.

Premise: There is no oxygen in room 442

Conclusion: Therefore, there is no fire burning in room 442

If Premises 1 and 2 are true the conclusion must be true. Are they
true? If so, then the conclusion is true. As a fire is rapid
oxidation the absence of oxygen makes a fire impossible.

Premise: F then O is making the claim that the O is necessary
for the F. It claims the F is sufficient to know there is the O.

It is a mistake to confuse a necessary for a sufficient condition and to
argue this way.

Premise: P>Q

Premise: Q

Conclusion: therefore P

This mistake is called a fallacy and has the name of affirming the
consequent.

Nevertheless a good deal of thinking preceded with this pattern in science.

If the Hypothesis is correct then we will observe what the hypothesis would
predict. We do observe what was predicted and the conclusion is at
least partially supported that the hypothesis is correct.

Permise: If H, then O

Premise: O

Conclusion: H

Science moves forward with greater degree of probability of the conclusion
being true through the use of modus tollens which disproves an hypothesis or
refutes a claim:

Permise: If H, then O

Premise: not O

Conclusion: not H

But even then there might have been something not quite correct in the
hypothesis or some auxiliary hypothesis or assumption being made that is
being disproven and nto the hypothesis. Perhaps there was the assumption
that the measuring being done would be accurate or the devices being used
would all function properly and so on. More testing of the hypothesis
is generally in order to rule out the other explanations for not detecting
the predicted result.

The logic of proving a negative or non-existence of some X.

Premise: If X exists, then you would observe O

Premise: We do not observe O

Conclusion: X does not exist.

This pattern is VALID and now what a person would need to check is whether
or not the premises are true.

If the X is the Tooth Fairy or Easter Bunny or Santa Claus then there are
certain observations that should be made. Not ever making those
observations despite numerous attempts would lead most humans to conclude
that there is no Tooth Fairy or Easter Bunny or Santa Claus , only
persons posing as such.

However, if the X is some supernatural being or spirit such as a deity or a
ghost or even an event claimed to have a supernatural source those who wish
to hold for the existence of such beings are not so willing to accept that
the existence of the being in reality is disproven and that the being does
not exist in reality. What happens?

Premise: If deity D exists, then
observe the events O

Premise: No observation of O

Conclusion : There is no deity.

This would be a VALID argument pattern so if the premises are true the
conclusion would be proven to be true. HOWEVER, those who want to hold to
the existence of D will introduce auxiliary claims so that the failure to
obverse O does not disprove the existence of D.

Example:

Premise: If yellow monkeys in the
jungle J exist, then you will observe the
yellow monkeys in jungle J

Premise: No observation of yellow
monkeys in the jungle J occurs

Conclusion : There are no yellow monkeys
in the jungle J

This would be a VALID argument pattern so if the premises are true the
conclusion would be proven to be true. HOWEVER, those who want to hold
to the existence of yellow monkeys in the jungle J will introduce auxiliary
claims so that the failure to obverse O does not disprove the existence of
yellow monkeys in the jungle J..

Premise: If yellow monkeys in
the jungle J exist and it is a rainy
Tuesday, then you will observe the
yellow monkeys in jungle J

Premise: No observation of yellow
monkeys in the jungle J occurs on rainy
Tuesdays when observations are carried
out.

Conclusion : There are no yellow
monkeys in the jungle J

That would appear to disprove the existence of the yellow monkeys in the
jungle J except that the believer in the yellow monkeys in jungle J can
offer another auxiliary hypothesis or claim.

Premise: If yellow monkeys
in the jungle J exist and it is a
rainy Tuesday and they want you to
see them, then you will observe the
yellow monkeys in jungle J

Premise: No observation of
yellow monkeys in the jungle J
occurs

Conclusion : There are no yellow
monkeys in the jungle J and it is a
rainy Tuesday that want you to see
them.

So the person who wants to believe
in yellow monkeys in the
jungle J exist can continue to
believe in them and claim that they
do exist even with no evidence to
support the claim. The person
who wants to believe in yellow
monkeys in the jungle J exist will
claim that you did not prove that
there were no yellow monkeys in the
jungle J and so the person can go on
believing that there are yellow
monkeys in the jungle.

Now substitute a supernatural being
of any kind into the position held by
the yellow monkeys in jungle J in
the arguments above and you should
be able to understand why it is so
difficult to prove a negative claim.

Person B claims that deity D exists.
Person B does not offer any
convincing arguments or evidence or
proof that D exists but shifts the
burden of proof and claims that D
exists unless it can be proven that
D does not exist. An attempt to
prove that D does not exist might
take this form. Let O be the
observation of the deity itself.

Premise: If deity D
exists, then observe the events
O

Premise: No observation of O

Conclusion : There is no
deity.

Now
the person who claims that D
does exist can alter the
position in this manner:

Premise: If deity
D exists and wants to be
observed, then we observe
the events O

Premise: No observation
of O

Conclusion : There is no
deity that wants to be
observed..

So by introducing features
into the initial premise the
attempt to disprove the
existence of D is thwarted.
All manner of post hoc
explanations can be offered
to explain what was
observed. For example
the claim could be made that
deity D wants people to
accept the existence of D as
an act of faith in D and so
does not make the existence
of D obvious or observable.
This process can be repeated
in many different ways. This
makes the attempt to
disprove the existence of D
very difficult if not
impossible. Thus it is
that the claim is made that
it is difficult if not
impossible to prove a
negative claim or the
non-existence of something.
The Burden of Proof is on
the positive claim. This
stands to reason. This
makes sense. This placement
of the Burden of Proof makes
reasoned discourse possible.

Or now let D be a deity that
is claimed to be All Good
and All Knowledgeable and
All Powerful.. The
argument to disprove the
existence of D might take
this form:

Premise 1: If
deity D exists, then
observe the events
O=absence of what is not
good

Premise 2: No
observation of O and
instead there is
observation of things
that are not good or
evil

Conclusion : There
is no deity D.

Well this would not
prove that there is no
deity only that D, a
deity that is claimed to
be All Good and All
Knowledgeable and All
Powerful, does not exist
. Now the person
who claims that there is
a deity can now remove
on of the three
properties and the
disproof would no longer
be applicable or deny
the truth of premise 1.
Or the person claiming
that there is a deity
could deny that what was
observed to be evil was
evil=denying the truth
of premise 2.

So the Burden of Proof
rests with the person
making the claim and a
positive claim. It
is shifting the Burden
of Proof for the person
making the positive
claim to insist that
those who deny the
positive claim have the
burden to prove that the
positive claim is false.
It is the Fallacy or
mistake of appealing to
ignorance to reach a
conclusion based on lack
of knowledge such as
with taking the position
that :

If you can not prove
that X does not exists,
then X does exist.

If you can not prove
that X is false, then X
is true.

Absence of evidence is
not Evidence of absence
.

FALSE DILEMMA or
non-exhaustive
alternatives

There is the mistake of
thinking that there are
only two alternatives of
a false dilemma:

Premise 1:Either X
exists or X does not
Exist

Premise 2:You cannot
prove that X does
not exist

Conclusion: X does
exist.

OR

Premise 1:Either
X exists or X
does not Exist

Premise 2:You
cannot prove
that X does
exist

Conclusion: X
does not exist.

There is a valid
pattern:

Premise
1:Either A
or B

Premise
2:You prove
it is not A

Conclusion:
It must be
B.

The mistake
is making it
appear that
the valid
pattern is
being used
when it is
not because
the first
premise of
the valid
pattern is
NOT TRUE.

Premise
1:Either
X exists
or X
does not
Exist

Premise
2:You
cannot
prove
that X
does
exist

Conclusion:
X does
not
exist.

Should
be

Premise
1:Either
(A)
X
exists
and
we
know
it
or
(B)
X
exists
but
we
do
not
know
it
or
(C)
X
does
not
exist
and
we
know
it
or
(D)
X
does
not
exist
and
we
do
not
know
it

Premise
2:You
cannot
prove
that
X
does
exist.

What
conclusion
would
follow
from
this?
either
B or
D

CONCLUSION:

We
do
not
know
what
we
do
not
know
and
it
is a
mistake
to
conclude
that
we
do
know
something
when
we
do
not
know
it.
With
a
lack
of
knowledge
we
can
not
reach
a
definite
conclusion.

Humans
need
to
proceed
carefully
in
reaching
conclusions.
There
should
be
evidence
to
support
conclusions.
Humans
need
to
be
patient
and
accept
ignorance
and
hope
it
is
temporary
and
work
to
acquire
more
evidence
and
knowledge.
There
is
the
continuing
process
of
careful
and
critical
inquiry
that
has
moved
humans
to
the
acquisition
of
reliable
claims
of
knowledge.
Humans
who
hope
to
retain
their
rationality
and
the
value
it
has
proved
to
the
species
would
do
well
to
observe
the
principle
of
the
Burden
of
Proof.

Humans
need
to
proceed
carefully
in
reaching
conclusions.
There
should
be
evidence
to
support
conclusions.
Humans
need
to
be
patient
and
accept
ignorance
and
hope
it
is
temporary
and
work
to
acquire
more
evidence
and
knowledge.

Please close this window and return to the
previous section of the textbook and continue on.